Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

[Dob]

I don't think you CAN scientifically define "intelligent design" as applied to the cosmos without invoking the supernatural, since there are no known natural processes that can create a cosmos *intentionally*.

Let's narrow our focus down from the cosmos to man himself. Do you believe that all of man's thoughts and actions are the result of natural processes (known or unknown)? Put another way, do you think it is theoretically possible to build an android that is indistinguishable from a human being? Or, more simply, to build a sentient computer that can perfectly mimic human thought?*

*Any resemblance to a certain computer in a certain "unenlightening" science fiction movie/book is purely unintentional.

[Rspaight]

Yup. *Way* beyond our capabilities, of course. We can't even imagine the parameters at this point, let alone the specifics of such a thing. But there's no reason for it to be considered impossible. Hell, we can build simple forms of life today. Synthetic smallpox is coming soon to a terrorist bazaar near you. Another few thousand years of R&D, assuming we don't actually *use* the synthetic smallpox, and who knows.

However, I think a M*****l-bot might be achievable in the near term.

Ryan

[Ess Ay Cee Dee]

However, I think a M*****l-bot might be achievable in the near term.

That would certainly be an easy one to program.

[krabapple]

Question: Does science accept the existence of examples of "intelligent design" (human or otherwise)?
Answer: No. "Intelligent design" has no scientific defintion and is not a scientific concept.

Question: What then are the scientific criteria for determining what "intelligent design" is?
Answer: There are no such criteria.

Am I on the right track so far?

Not really -- replace 'creationist' for 'scientific' and you'll be on the right track

You simply don't seem to be getting that since CREATIONISTS are the ones hawking 'intellifent design', it's the task of CREATIONISTS to
demonstrate the need for invoking 'intelligent design', and it's up to them to define what they mean by that as well. And, of course, it would be nice if they offered some data, some experiments, and some theory to back it all up.

Is this a correct statement: "Considering intelligent design besides human design, though, is ruled out by the fact that proponents say nothing positive about what such 'intelligent design' implies." If it is, explain to me how the reference to "intelligent human design" does not contradict the above statements.

As I said , there doesnt' seem to be *one* such definition. I'm not teasing you -- go look it up.

"Science can't define intelligence" is a true statement, then?

No. You also don't seem to be getting (though I've said it quite plainly), that there is no *agreed upon* definition of intelligence among scientists
(or among nonscientists, for that matter).

I didn't say science *can't* define design...

Are any of these definitions close?
(verbs)
To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent
To formulate a plan for; devise
To plan out in systematic form
To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect
To have as a goal or purpose; intend
To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.
(nouns)
The purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details
An ornamental pattern.
A basic scheme or pattern that affects and controls function or development.

Close to *what*? Where did you get these from?

Suppose it means 'shaped' in the same way that a mountain range is 'shaped' by the weather and tectonic action?

Since life is shaped by DNA,

Well, no, not *just* DNA. DNA + environment is what literally shapes life, at both the individual level, and the evolutionary level.

am I correct in assuming that your analogy refers to the "shaping" of DNA by evolution? If so, what is the "weather and tectonic action" that shapes DNA?

mutation, natural selection, genetic drift

This is all elementary stuff. Frankly, I'm not going to bother any more , since you clearly aren't doing the assigned reading.

[Dob]

Hell, we can build simple forms of life today. Synthetic smallpox is coming soon to a terrorist bazaar near you.

I don't think there's agreement on whether viruses are living things. While they do exhibit some characteristics of life, they act more like organic machines in that they are dormant until they are "switched on," and if left in that dormant stage they don't "die" so much as decay, like a piece of wood (IIRC). Furthermore (again, IIRC), under certain circumstances, the nucleus of the virus (without its shell) is capable of invading a cell, and I'm not aware of anyone claiming that the DNA nucleus by itself is a living thing.

Yup. *Way* beyond our capabilities, of course. But there's no reason for it to be considered impossible.

Let me ask a few follow-up questions. If all of your thoughts and actions are the result of the natural processes that are governing the functions of your brain, how do explain the concept of "free will"? If these natural processes are orderly, wouldn't that imply that they are theoretically predictable, which would in turn imply that free will is an illusion? However, if these natural processes are "random" (labeling processes as "random" is arguably unscientific, but let's leave it), wouldn't that negate the idea of free will as well?

[krabapple]

I don't think you CAN scientifically define "intelligent design" as applied to the cosmos without invoking the supernatural, since there are no known natural processes that can create a cosmos *intentionally*.

Let's narrow our focus down from the cosmos to man himself. Do you believe that all of man's thoughts and actions are the result of natural processes (known or unknown)? Put another way, do you think it is theoretically possible to build an android that is indistinguishable from a human being? Or, more simply, to build a sentient computer that can perfectly mimic human thought?*

*Any resemblance to a certain computer in a certain "unenlightening" science fiction movie/book is purely unintentional.

Sure. Give man 4 billion years of trial-and-error to work on it (which is how long it took natural forces to spawn it) and I think we could succeed.

(Others have posited that it's theoretically impossible for *man* to create artificial *man-like* intelligence, because he's too 'close' to it -- man can't get the proper perspective on the workings of his own mind. )

[Dob]

Frankly, I'm not going to bother any more...

I'm sorry you consider me such a bother. FWIW, I do NOT have the same opinion about you (though I do wish your posts weren't so sloppy).

From my perspective, it was starting to appear that I couldn't say anything right, even when I just tried to repeat, in my own words, what you wrote. I couldn't even ask the "right" questions. So I guess it's just as well that you don't want to talk to me anymore.

If creationists piss you off, because of what they're trying to do in schools, that's your choice. But, regardless of what I think about evolution, I do not support the teaching of creationism in science class. So what is your reason to be pissed off at me?

[Rspaight]

If all of your thoughts and actions are the result of the natural processes that are governing the functions of your brain, how do explain the concept of "free will"?

"Free will" as opposed to what?

If you're positing a source for "will" outside the physical body, that's serious metaphysical stuff. Still, my own prejudices tell me that everything arises from the natural structure and operation of the brain. Ask someone with OCD about "free will" some time, and if that "will" is independent of the chemical composition of the brain or not.

We can certainly have varying levels of self-awareness (and, in my totally non-scientific view, getting to the higher levels can effectively allow some parts of the brain control over other parts of the brain), but I don't think any of those levels are independent of the brain.

If these natural processes are orderly, wouldn't that imply that they are theoretically predictable, which would in turn imply that free will is an illusion?

I wouldn't say "orderly" per se. After you're done chatting with the OCD patient, ask a weatherman about the predictability of natural processes.

If you're asking whether the concept that we are somehow transcendent of our own bodies is an illusion, then yes, I think it is. It's an inspirational notion that we are not limited by our corporeal selves, but only a notion.

Completely IMO. These sorts of questions are not answerable in any sort of objective way with our current ability to observe ourselves. Your guess is as good as mine.

Ryan

[Patrick M]

"Free will" as opposed to what?

I hear you, Mr Peart.

I wouldn't say "orderly" per se. After you're done chatting with the OCD patient, ask a weatherman about the predictability of natural processes.

You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows.

[Patrick M]

If you're asking whether the concept that we are somehow transcendent of our own bodies is an illusion, then yes, I think it is.

Paging Ryan's wife....

[Dob]

If you're positing a source for "will" outside the physical body, that's serious metaphysical stuff.

I'm not positing anything. I'm asking for your (or anyone else's) opinion.

Ask someone with OCD about "free will" some time, and if that "will" is independent of the chemical composition of the brain or not.

Whoa, hold on. So now I'm insulting people with OCD (or any other mental illness or chemical addiction) because I'm implying that they could just "shape up if they wanted to"? Because I asked you your opinion on the concept of free will?

If I'm wildly off base here, I apologize, but I get the distinct impression that I accidentally hit a hot button.

Let's suppose that I talk to someone that is, for the sake of argument, alcoholic (instead of OCD). And let's suppose further that this person denies that he is an alcoholic. He says, and believes, that he drinks because he likes it, and that he can quit drinking any time he wants. So, is my conclusion that this person has free will, because he says he does? If you're proposing that only the individual himself can answer if he has free will, then I have to accept his answer. If not, then why am I asking him?

We can certainly have varying levels of self-awareness...

Are you referring to dreams here?

I wouldn't say "orderly" per se. After you're done chatting with the OCD patient, ask a weatherman about the predictability of natural processes.

And I'd tell this weatherman that just because he can't predict the weather, that doesn't mean that no pattern exists.

Characterizing the weather as "random" is a variation of the "God of the gaps" argument. In other words, "this process is so complicated, I can't see any pattern. Therefore, it must be random."

[Patrick M]

And I'd tell this weatherman that just because he can't predict the weather, that doesn't mean that no pattern exists.

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition ... 32,00.html

[Rspaight]

Whoa, hold on. So now I'm insulting people with OCD (or any other mental illness or chemical addiction) because I'm implying that they could just "shape up if they wanted to"? Because I asked you your opinion on the concept of free will?

If I'm wildly off base here, I apologize, but I get the distinct impression that I accidentally hit a hot button.

I didn't mean to come off as hostile. Sorry if I did. All I meant was that the notion of "free will" vis a vis independence from one's body is lent interesting new shadings in the context of someone whose brain is actively working against them. That's all. I didn't take offense at anything you said and didn't read anything accusatory into it.

Are you referring to dreams here?

No.

Let's stick with the OCD example, since I know a thing or two about it. Someone with OCD who doesn't realize it is utterly controlled by obsessive impulses. As far as they are concerned, they are exercising free will when they compulsively check the oven twelve times a day, or retrace their trip home from work twice because they think they might have hit a pedestrian.

Now, if that person realizes they have a problem, that's a new level of self-awareness. Now, they may start fighting these impulses. Now, free will has become based in conflict between "good" impulses and "bad" impulses. However, the person may not understand (or care) which impulses represent "free will", if any.

Taken further, if that person receives successful treatment, they will understand that chemical imbalances in the brain are responsible for their obsessions and compulsions. Yet another new level of self-awareness. What the person now confronts is the "free will" of their consciousness dealing with the faulty impulses parts of their brain is sending. What was once a person's "will" is now set in opposition to that "will." Accepting and dismissing that "other will" is the key to effectively living with OCD. (However, IMO, this new "free will" is no more independent of the brain than the previous perception of "free will.")

That's what I mean by different levels of self-awareness. Defining "free will" is difficult because not everyone perceives the same thing as "free will." In any event, it's impossible to say objectively whether "free will" is an illusion because we cannot objectively assess it. We are *in* it. It's great fodder for philosophers. Personally, I think it's all biology. But I'm a killjoy when it comes to such things.

In other words, "this process is so complicated, I can't see any pattern. Therefore, it must be random."

What Patrick said. Just because something isn't random doesn't necessarily mean that it's predictable.

Ryan

[Dob]

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci759332,00.html

From that web page:

"Although chaos is often thought to refer to randomness and lack of order, it is more accurate to think of it as an apparent randomness that results from complex systems and interactions among systems."

[Dob]

What Patrick said. Just because something isn't random doesn't necessarily mean that it's predictable.

Of course that's true today. But in the context of this discussion, where we are talking about "what if's" that are way beyond our current capabilities, don't you think that it's possible in theory? I mean, you allowed the possibility of someday being able to build a human being.